Hi Dirk, Thanks for your response.
Am 14.05.20 um 18:37 schrieb Dirk Hohndel: > Hi Chrisof > >> On May 14, 2020, at 3:30 AM, Christof Arnosti <cha...@charno.ch >> <mailto:cha...@charno.ch>> wrote: >> >> Let me give some thoughts from a more-or-less outsider perspective in >> this discussion. >> >> From a UI-Perspective, I would prefer the layout to be "Dive List top >> left", "Filter top right", "Stats selection bottom left", "Stats >> display bottom right". This is with the reasoning that (in the >> western world) we work from top left, top right, bottom left, bottom >> right, and the logical Workflow would be to have the dive list as >> input, which is then filtered, then the statistics selected and >> finally the output. This workflow could also be applied as sort of a >> wizard for mobile devices. >> > > In insulation that may be true. But our existing UI is not up for > discussion. And that very intentionally has the information that the > user interacts with (information tabs and profile) on top, and the > selection of dives on the bottom. Switching that around to show > statistics would lead to a horrible user experience. I see. Makes sense to be consistent here. > > On mobile these would have to be different pages, anyway, so there the > 'layout' question is fairly moot Agree. > >> For selecting the graph type (the bar vs boxplot discussion): Could >> this also be implemented as an option in the "Stats selection" >> section? I think it's obvious that some people prefer the more >> advanced boxplot version, and some the easier to understand bar/line >> graph version. >> > > Every time we opt for "oh, let's make this selectable" we > significantly increase the amount of code that needs to be written and > tested, and we make the UI more complicated by adding more options. > We already have way, way, way too many options. And we constantly find > that yet some other feature has bit-rotted and doesn't work anymore. > Or that some changes to our code break something else that doesn't > have an active developer anymore. > > Today Subsurface is de facto maintained by about five people, three of > which contribute in very narrow slices that are "theirs", and the > other two (Berthold and I) try to keep everything else working. Makes sense. Bitrot is a pain I just know too good (I'm currently procastrinating to fix some legacy C++ code on a microcontroller that won't cooperate with updated host software... The horrors!). > >> Another (third? fourth?) option I just tought of was a boxplot with >> included histogram, where the histogram is displayed as color >> (instead of a curve). I have attached an image of a short mockup >> (Where red means more, and green means less). I'm not sure if that's >> a good idea, but at least it's an idea ;-) >> > > It's definitely an idea. It's geeky and cool. I don't think it will > help accessibility (in the sense of being easy to understand for the > casual user). I agree, if there is no selectable graph style this should NOT be the one. > >> About graph orientation: I strongly agree that the bars (or boxes or >> whatever) should be vertical, so that the time-axis (or trip axis or >> whatever) is the z axis. >> > > You mean time / categories should be the x axis, correct? Yes, exactly. Sorry for confusing X/Z. For me it's just way more natural to process data from left to right instead of top to bottom, especially if it's time-based (which I think it will be in the most cases - categorizing by trips will probably also be sorted by time?). > >> This is (at least for me) the natural way to read graphs, and also >> what's currently done in the dive-display. >> > > Which dive display? The dive list has time as the vertical axis. Do > you mean the dive profile? That's a single dive, not a collection of > dives. Very different. Yes, the dive profile. I know it's a different thing, but still it's a graph and time is on the x axis. I think this would add some additional confusion if there are differently-oriented graphs. > >> And as a last point a proposal for a little visual gimmick: I would >> really like to have the value-axis for depth turned around, so that >> the 0-point is on top of the graph (like in the current dive-graph). >> With this, the visual representation of the data is the same as in >> the physical reality, lower means lower. >> > > Yes, that makes perfect sense for a dive plot (which is why we do it > that way). For statistics I would find it absolutely painful. I wouldn't ;-) But as said, it's just a gimmick. > > /D Best regards Christof
_______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list subsurface@subsurface-divelog.org http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface